can I automatically delete dng when export to Jpeg?

Hi all,
I would like a smarter way to do the following process, which I think is common to many people.

I shot in raw only (dng).
Then I review all the pictures quickly and delete unwanted pictures (20% worst)
The remaining, I select the 20% best shot and on these I do (or plan to do later) some editing in LR (increase details, convert to BW, eliminate noise etc.).
I don't do the editing step above for all the others "average" pictures (60%). Maybe I just apply a default setting to these but anyway more or less are untouched.
Then I would like to convert all the "average" pictures to jpeg with 100% quality and remove their DNG copy which takes too much space.

Today I have to select all the "untouched" pictures, go to export menu, save them in the same folder with 100% quality, then sync the library so each picture is displayed (twice: dng and jpg), then filter for dng pictures only, then distiguish the untouched "average" pictures (which could be touched by applying a default setting but not edited manually) from the best pictures that I edited, then delete the dng of the "average" pictures keeping the best picture dng, then sync the library again so I don't have all the duplicates displayed.
After this process I have the 20% best pictures in dng, and the average pictures only in jpg.

I would like at least being able to "export and delete original dng" in automatic way in one step, and refresh the library display automatically so jpg appears immediately after the export. Is it possible?
Thanks a lot.

I wouldn't delete DNG files, I have done it once and regretted it afterwards.
Shoot Raw+JPEG, only edit what you feel like. Storage space is pretty cheap anyway. Keep the raw files for processing later. Software gets better and better, your skills get better.

believe me... when you go on holiday with family you do hundreds of shots of childrens in the swimmingpool etc. You do not dare to delete anything (just because are your childrens :-) but you end up with 200 pictures all looking the same and you will never edit them again (nor print). You just can't delete your sons but don't want to waste 23Mbx200 either.... you can keep them in jpg with regretting later.
Storage is cheap, but you want also to do backup, have a copy on the other PC and so on... so I prefer to keep the situation under control upfront. Now I do it manually anyway...

I really know what you mean about having way too many pictures. Somehow, also being shutter-count-conscious and also shooting film, I managed to reduce the number by shooting only what I like and what I want to keep. Yes, my family started to hate me, but I don't want to be bothered with useless photos.

I do not know of an automatic way to do this.
However, it would not be too hard though it will take a couple of steps.
1) For the 20% you are going to delete select them and mark them for deletion by pressing the 'x' key
2) For the 20% you are going to work with select them and mark them as a pick by pressing the 'p' key
3) Now go to the filter bar and click on the 'unflagged photo' filter button. This will display everything that is not 'x' or 'p'
4) Select all (ctrl-A) then export as you wish
5) Now either delete or press 'x' to mark for later deletion. I would do the latter as it gives you a chance to review things before deleting

I sympathize with your desire to keep storage space in line but I will agree with those above that warn against deleting things. I sort similar to you although I delete closer to 40% on the first pass, no point keeping 6 images that are virtually identical. I usually pick one or two from each scene that I think are the best and then keep one or two more as backups, which might get deleted later, the rest are gone so I can concentrate on the few good ones. That's from work shoots, I tend to keep a lot more from family shoots, not sure why, I'll never look at all of them anyway.

One other option to consider is to get an external USB drive, maybe $100 USD and during the import to Lightroom check the box to make a separate copy to the external drive. You never have to see them, they do not take space on your working drive and you have a backup if decide you really need one of those deleted RAWs back.

I don't throw anything out. Even missed shots have some value. All originals reside in a directory. Edited and put into project shots go elsewhere. It is always useful to be able to go back to all your shots. Storage is cheAp memories are not

I don't throw anything out. Even missed shots have some value. All originals reside in a directory. Edited and put into project shots go elsewhere. It is always useful to be able to go back to all your shots. Storage is cheAp memories are not

That only works if you don't have too many photos to handle. When you end up with terabytes of just because pictures, the sheer number becomes an obstacle that will keep most people from every bothering. If you are going to save lots of images because someday, somebody may possibly or possibly not want to maybe look at them, it isn't the storage space issue that's the problem. Usefulness is.

I just spent the last six months of going through old uncatalogued photos. I'm not done. My suggestion is that if you are going to save stuff just because, that the images get thoroughly keyworded and star rated or color tagged. If 60% are just because, my guess is that some barely made the cut. Give them one star. The ones that are so-so, two, and the ones that are pretty good, but not top, three stars. That's one system. Any one that is consistent would do. That makes the eventual sorting and discarding much easier. Also, thoroughly keyword the photos. If they are worth keeping at all they are worth making searchable. At least include: name, event and location. The more data you include the more valuable the images are as records. A big, undifferentiated mass of pictures won't get looked at often, if at all. A searchable catalog can be a treasure.

That only works if you don't have too many photos to handle. When you end up with terabytes of just because pictures, the sheer number becomes an obstacle that will keep most people from every bothering. If you are going to save lots of images because someday, somebody may possibly or possibly not want to maybe look at them, it isn't the storage space issue that's the problem. Usefulness is.

I just spent the last six months of going through old uncatalogued photos. I'm not done. My suggestion is that if you are going to save stuff just because, that the images get thoroughly keyworded and star rated or color tagged. If 60% are just because, my guess is that some barely made the cut. Give them one star. The ones that are so-so, two, and the ones that are pretty good, but not top, three stars. That's one system. Any one that is consistent would do. That makes the eventual sorting and discarding much easier. Also, thoroughly keyword the photos. If they are worth keeping at all they are worth making searchable. At least include: name, event and location. The more data you include the more valuable the images are as records. A big, undifferentiated mass of pictures won't get looked at often, if at all. A searchable catalog can be a treasure.

Fantastic post. Perfect counter to the "Storage is cheap" argument which I believed until I got in the same position with masses and masses of "just in case" images getting in the way of enjoying the decent ones. I've started deleting 2/3's of my pics and probably should do much more given only about <5% ever see the light of day.

That only works if you don't have too many photos to handle. When you end up with terabytes of just because pictures, the sheer number becomes an obstacle that will keep most people from every bothering. If you are going to save lots of images because someday, somebody may possibly or possibly not want to maybe look at them, it isn't the storage space issue that's the problem. Usefulness is.

I just spent the last six months of going through old uncatalogued photos. I'm not done. My suggestion is that if you are going to save stuff just because, that the images get thoroughly keyworded and star rated or color tagged. If 60% are just because, my guess is that some barely made the cut. Give them one star. The ones that are so-so, two, and the ones that are pretty good, but not top, three stars. That's one system. Any one that is consistent would do. That makes the eventual sorting and discarding much easier. Also, thoroughly keyword the photos. If they are worth keeping at all they are worth making searchable. At least include: name, event and location. The more data you include the more valuable the images are as records. A big, undifferentiated mass of pictures won't get looked at often, if at all. A searchable catalog can be a treasure.

I have had 2 occasions to go through my entire 30+ years of images in he post year, and although my collection is limited (80-100k) shots over 30 years, eveni though some shots are just so so, they are the only ones I have of certain people that were important to the people I made the collections for. So so, at one instant may not be relevant to the ultimate use. That is all. As I said storage is cheap.

I love when I make a technical question and a philosophic discussion starts :-)

Anyway I think Jatrax answered technically part of my questions. I need to use selection and filters in the right order and I can achieve a time saving in the process. So I understand that the "export and delete original" option does not exists in LR but with the right filter I can do with just an extra step. Fine.

About my second question, being able to refresh the library automatically (as it happens in Picasa as soon as a new picture is loaded in the monitored folders) I am still not sure if it is impossible (because of LR philosophy) or it is me not finding the right setting. If anybody knows how to do it... the problem again is that when I export even just one picure to jpg it does not appear in the thumbnail view of that library. If I manually sync the library than it is the only picture that appear and I have to go back on the left side and select the original folder then finally I see old and new pictures. Can this happen automatically like in Picasa?